Date: 6-22-11

Attendance

Board Members

Present: Scott Webber, Joe Nicoloff, David Decker, Don Austin

Gary Kluckman and Jason Hicks.

Late to Meeting: Jim McCann

Quorum Present: Yes

Others Present

Holishor Members Present: 13

Glenn Dalton and Kellie Crider from Holishor Office

Proceedings

Meeting called to order at 7:30 PM

Pledge of Allegiance Recited

Minutes of June 8, 2011

Action: Jason Hicks motions to approve amended minutes, Don Austin seconds

Motion carries

Old Business

Su Twan Dam Updates

Glenn Dalton: Our rate is remaining the same so we are continuing to monitor it.

Bank Signature Cards

Action: Ray Garber is to be removed from Signature cards for First National Bank. Scott Webber, Jim McCann, Joe Nicoloff and David Decker are now the only authorized signatures.

Covenant Voting

Scott Webber: There are 2040 total lots in the association and 1750 voting lots. We had made a motion to vote the association lots in favor of the Covenants, the board voted in favor on Association lots and that was 101 properties. The envelopes are done, the goal is Monday or Tuesday to get them out and done. If you have any proxies give them to the office by Friday.

319 Grant

Glenn Dalton: The work will begin the 1^st week of July.

New Business

Write-off Bankruptcy

Action: David Decker motions to write of the amount of $3830.26 from a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Joe Nicoloff seconds.

The Bankruptcy was submitted in March of 2010, the 2011 Dues and Assessments with late fees will still be charged.

Motion Carries

Issue ID Cards per the rules

Joe Nicoloff: Public Safety has a problem identifying people and we should be issuing ID Cards and that is where the discussion went. We decided that it would be the best way to Issue ID Cards. That way if they go to the beach they say “Do you have your ID Card” and if they don’t it’s a simple thing, they can’t be on the beach.

David Decker: So we just said that if you don’t have your card you can’t be on the beach? That is our plan?

Joe Nicoloff: That was our discussion.

Jason Hicks: would that be all amenities?

Joe Nicoloff: Yes

Scott Webber: To jump on what David said, that is not what the rule implies. It says Annual membership cards will be issued to each Association member/spouse after the current (and any delinquent) dues and assessments have been paid in full. It is a family card and members of your immediate family are entitled to all privileges. This card is not transferable. No person will be allowed to use the lake or other community facilities unless they are paid up members or guests of a paid up member. To Daves question, if I am on the beach and I don’t have my card, I don’t see why I can’t be there.

Glenn Dalton: It is a matter of interpretation, if your not paid up in full you don’t have a card, so basically we are looking at having something that everyone who is in good standing should have in their possession or they are not allowed to use the facilities.

Conversation Ensues

Joe Nicoloff: It was also brought up about Madison County, we call them, they come out, there is nothing to prove that they are a member and they claim they live right over there.

David Decker: No where in the rules does it require you to carry a card, and if the only reason we are having these cards is to force people to carry them I am 100% against it.

Glenn Dalton: Well I don’t understand what the purpose of an ID card would be then. Why would anyone have one?

Conversation Ensues

Darren Onwiler 301: I would second that we need some way to identify members. I am sure you know my occupation and the problems we have when we come out here. I think if you changed the verbiage to say that they had to produce the card when they are out here. We are not going to expect you to have your ID card rubber banded to you when you are swimming. But if Public Safety asks you or Madison County is questioning you then you should be able to produce that card, if you are a member in the association and in good standing. If that means I have left it at the house, it might be an inconvenience to go get it but then you can keep using the facilities. That is what we pay our dues for, and I would go for guests as well, if you are here with a member you should be able to have a member produce a card.

Patrick Johnston 362: I can tell you this, I know for a fact when Jerry and I were on the board years ago we never intended for everyone to carry a card 24hours a day. The Ids were there, they were put in the bylaws, they were for the meetings and 4^th of July, I can tell you this, no time prior to me being on the board or now. The way Gino dealt with trespassers, when someone is stopped out here who doesn’t’ belong, you write them a ticket, especially if they couldn’t say who they were, we would check it out and if it didn’t check we would call Madison County. If you have a membership list you can print that out a lot cheaper than ID Cards and keep it in a binder. If they can’t produce who they are, then write them a ticket and make them come back and prove who they are.

Conversation Ensues

Ray Skipanski 676: I have been here since 96 and on Holidays you have to have a permit, if I have guests come in to use the boats; I have to get a permit for them to use a boat. If they get pulled over then Security would check them.

Conversation Ensues

Open Floor

Rich Hertel 679: This whole issue deals with, not the person, it’s the process, if anyone was offended at prior meetings, I am sorry it was not my intention. As you know, over the past few months I have discussed my concerns over excessive wakes and its impact to the safety of Holiday Shore residents using the lake as well as the potential damage risk to main lake front properties. When this issue surfaced two years ago its my understanding that the Board asked the Boating Committee to look into this issue and make recommendations. Recommendations were made and supported by the Board to raise, re-do or strengthen sea walls with rip-rap vs. the current fixed walls that are in place. When these recommendations were made it is also my understanding that boat manufactures were not researched and possibly other lake associations were not contacted or its impact to the 100+ main lake properties. In defense of this it is understandable since this type of boating or fad became popular the last two years and Holiday Shores has been impacted. These are my findings: Some drivers of larger boats are unaware of the wakes they cause when they operate their boats just below plane. We currently have 17 boats that are called wake boats which are actually inboard boats generally consisting of the following brands: Mastercraft, Tige, Supra, Moomba, Malibu, Axis and etc. Provided the boats are 22’ and less the boats are legal and should be allowed on the lake. These boats in them selves are excellent ski boats for all type of skiing and especially perfect for our ski club. The boats mentioned however have two major options that makes them wake boats that when activated, produce large wakes that generally exceed 3’ (36”) above a standard wake. The options are called “wake blades” and “water ballasts” capable of holding up to 1900 lbs of water. The wake blade makes a steep wake while the water ballast weighs the boat down deeper in the water for the sole purpose of creating large wakes. According to the manufacturers, these options are factory installed at a cost of less than 10% of the total cost of the boat. The options can be a bit higher depending upon the electronics involved. In the main ski lake area from the dam to the ski turn around at the North end there are 67 rip-rap sea walls and 110 fixed or upright sea walls. A review of the upright sea walls by water indicates that to add rip-rap or replace for rip-rap and raise the level would be a major undertaking for a property owner. Considering an average cost of $5,000 per the risk to main ski lake properties could exceed $500,000 over time. It is agreed that lake front property owners are responsible for the maintenance on their lake fronts and this should be part of the norm for owning a lake front. This may be a true statement, but when or if excessive wakes are permitted, this should not considered the norm for maintenance. When this lake was established around 1967, boating rules state then and now that a boat cannot exceed 22’. The sole purpose of this was for safety of its residents and the protection of property. To permit the actions in question goes against the original intent of the 22’ boat rule. I have contacted several lake communities to discuss this issue. Because this is new to most lake communities at this point only Lake Carroll has this on their radar. Comments have been made to find a way that all can be happy. I personally see no way to permit these going forward. This is a no win situation for anyone. Keep some things in mind. We limit boats to 22’ for a reason, we ban open unrestricted exhaust, drag boats, or racing boats, 55 mph speed limit and etc. I honestly feel that if the Boating committee had these facts and presented them to the Board last year or so the outcome would be totally different than today. In closing, knowing what you know now, and the facts have not been disputed, I strongly recommend the Board take action to ban the use of any wake enhancement devise on any boat used on the Holiday Shores Lake. If the Board chooses not to I strongly recommend that the Board let the membership decide at the annual meeting.

Darren Onwiler 301: If this member has his way they are gonna ban any ballast or wakeplate use on the lake. How would that effect, the 17 wake boats already on the lake.

Scott Webber: They would not be allowed to use them, Public Safety would have to figure out a way to enforce it. Using the options, not the boats.

Darren Onwiler 301: Good luck with that. I guess my point to this is, when I purchased my boat I abided by the laws the association set. I like wakeboarding, so does my family, it is an activity that we enjoy on the lake. I can definitely appreciate the added cost for maintaining a lake front lot. I know it is now cheap because my family has one as well. As a wake boat owner, buying a boat that is designed to wake board behind, it already has the options on it IE, the wake plate, IE the ballast. I purchased this boat to use it as designed, it fell under the laws, now after the fact, I’m being told that yeah you can use the boat but you can’t use the options you paid for. If that is the case I would not have bought the boat I have now. I would have bought a boat that would have been considerably cheaper. I am going to lose money because someone else doesn’t want to spend money. I am not out here trying to swamp someone’s lake front lots. I am out here trying to enjoy, and using commonsense. I made a point that us wake boaters try to use the water when there are no other boats out here. If you bring a bunch of boats out here you know how the lake gets, I am betting there will not be that much difference between multiple boats on the lake or a couple of ski boats. I don’t use my ballast all the time anyways, but it is something that I paid for and since I did I would like to have the option to use it. I would like to put this before the board, I don’t think there is any argument that our roads need work, there’s quite a few that need repair. I don’t think that anyone would argue that the more weight that is put on a road the quicker it breaks away. We’ve got a lot of pickup trucks out here, so to prevent the roads from breaking down we can say, you can use your truck but you can’t put anything in the bed. I know you paid for the option of a bed in the pickup truck, but to keep our roads from breaking down we say you can’t put anything back there. I think you would have a lot of people out here, me being one, that would be upset that they can’t use the bed of their truck, much like not being able to use the options on their boat. Why spend the extra money?

Conversation Ensues

Rocky Lane 1047: I am speaking as a citizen not as chairmen of the boating rules committee. What I would like the board to do is put a moratorium on wake boats with ballasts on it until this can be resolved. I have spent hours thinking about this and I can’t come up with an answer to solve the problem. I know it is a safety problem. Few years ago we had a ski boat that was going down the other side the sextant port area just looking at sea walls with president and 2 kids in the boat, the boat was just idling and went buy and swamped it. Both kids were thrown out. The boat was about under water, we took it over to an empty dock, emptied the water out, and this was from a non wake boat. This is from a 3ft wave. I don’t know how many board members live on the lake? 4? You know the situation then. The bass boats, most fishermen are looking at the shore, if a wave hits that boat they will fall out. I do not know what the answer is, I do know they are hazardous and I hate to see somebody spend money, I understand and sympathize but if it is a danger and a hazard, then something has to be done.

Patrick Johnston 362: unfortunately now I have been out here 21 years, I came out with no intention to stay and now 21 years later I am here with my family. I have seen a lot of unfavorable decisions get made; I am responsible for one major one. My boys love wakeboarding; we use my Montery, a standard 22ft. My kids can’t stand that I am about to say up here tonight. I was the board member that helped to limit the HP on Jet Skis. I have threats still to this day, but that’s ok, it was a decision made because even though it was tough it had to be done. We knew they would eventually stop making the lower HP, but our decision was either ban them now like every other lake, or let them phase out. I was on the board for 6 years in the 90’s and it worked, but it was a difficult decision but it is for the safety of the lake.

Scott Webber: just for the record we have a massive petition coming forward to raise the HP on the jet skis soon.

Patrick Joshnston 362: And I will be happy to come up and address that. I would recommend or offer to the board my position, our theory understood the technology 15 years ago, and there were a lot of issues. We are here to protect the members of the lake, and second is the protection of property. I spent 5 years on the building committee, this lake was mud then it became rip-rap, they wanted to increase the property value, Dolly Wood helped us and we offered classes. There never has been an intention to rip-rap the whole lake; I hope that is not the case. So now I hear lets keep the things that cause damage and make everyone remove the beautiful seawalls. I know that is not the intention.

Conversation Ensues

Glenn Dalton: The only other thing I want to throw out is we do not have a recommended height for sea walls, we are always talking about when we get back to normal weather, well this is normal weather. We are very blessed to have the seawalls that we have but I think we need to recommend heights for seawalls. We should go out there and see how tall they are now. The water washing out from behind causes major erosion.

Conversation Ensues

Scott Webber: I am talking as a member right now, you can probably give me 16-17 wakeboard boats and I could point out other boats that create the same wake with a bunch of heavy people in it. Isn’t that what this rule is about?
Glenn Dalton: Yes.

Scott Webber: We are spending a lot of time on properties and boats and we already have a rule in place for excessive wake.

Jason Hicks: We do but it’s loose parameters, because you can’t endanger any person or property. That puts the safety rule into play, on a Saturday afternoon and a ton of water craft are about and you see a lot of people on wake boards. They were designed for flips n jumps, you can ski on them. Maybe its semantics, but they were designed to jump and flip.

Scott Webber: But lets look at it from a different view, you are pulling your kids tubing, vs pulling Jim and I tubing in your boat?

Jason Hicks: I think you are making my point, on a Saturday when there are a ton of people out, I don’t want to go out there. I don’t have ballast on it, nothing, my daughter is 85lbs, there is nothing and we have been accused of swamping boats. There are a lot of different contributing factors, you have a lot of operating watercraft, how are you going to try to place the blame on one boat? Every water craft creates a wake; everyone on the lake will contribute to the damage. If someone wants to file a lawsuit cause their $20,000 sea wall crash into the water, who are you going to blame? Everyone that has a sticker for use of the lake?
Glenn Dalton: That is what I am trying to tie into this Jason, from our perspective, I think with the rules that we have and what we are going to do from Safety is ok, but when you look at the height of the seawalls and the height has been 505 or above, it doesn’t take much of a wake to go over that seawall. Eventually that seawall will fail from behind.

Conversation Ensues

Ben Kelly 858: I feel that the vertical seawalls contribute greatly, I have seen a bunch of them that are a foot under the normal pool. It takes hardly any wake to go over that. People worry about property damage, I have a $50,000 boat, and fishermen come to close and throw lures at it and scratch it. It happens, another thing the people that want to eliminate wakeboard boats, I have a cross over and if you say I can’t fill that water tank then it will have to apply to my fishing boat too because I won’t be able to fill the live well because that is artificial weight. What is good for one will have to be good for the others. Wakeboarding is not a fad, it is here to stay, it has been around since 2000. I have only been here 6 years and I can’t believe how many new houses have been build, there are more and more boats, there are 17 wake board boats out of 1000 registered boat so I don’t see that they are the problem.

Scott Webber: We are not attacking this rule, he took the time to create it and it deserves to be looked at but we may pick it apart as board members, but I have to ask, what is your definition of Artificial Weighting?

Rich Hertel : I think it spells it out, when you put concrete blocks or anything that creates weight for wake. Sure some boats can take 11 people and if they want to they can, just like to make a couple points, a lot of the fixed seawalls have been here for 30years, mine has been the same since 1978, I have not had any problems till about 2 years ago. I tried to take pictures of a boat on the lake last night, It created wake that went over my docks that were white capping. Jim with all do respect, you are kind of penalizing the fixed seawall guys, if the association chooses to permit a 22ft boat to create a 3ft wake that is over and above a normal wake, and permanently let them do this, knowing by what people are saying here that this is going to increase, this is going to get worse down the road. I don’t know anymore how we can talk about this thing. It would not surprise me at all in the next couple years that we will be looking at 4 ft wakes. We have to look at this now, we have the info, I can’t think of any more research that needs to be done. We have an issue, if you want to permit it that is your call.

Conversation Ensues.

Darren Onwiler: When I was speaking on the IDS I want to make sure that it is a matter of record I was speaking as a citizen and not as a rep of Madison County.

David Decker motions to adjourn to executive session, Don Austin seconds.

Meeting Adjourns at 9:45 PM